Video: McCain and Palin versus Couric on “gotcha journalism”

posted at 7:33 pm on September 29, 2008 by Allahpundit

The “free Sarah” strategy is coming but it’s not here yet. Maverick’s with her today, then the debate, and then she’ll start doing talk radio and looking for opportunities to “tell her story.” Supposedly there was a feisty exchange with Couric this afternoon over her churchgoing — “Sarah Barracuda showed up today,” said one aide — but it didn’t air. Maybe tomorrow? As for the Pakistan bit, the only way that talking to a voter is “gotcha journalism” is if CNN distorted the conversation somehow through editing. Did they? If so, what context was omitted that would change the meaning when she said of cross-border raids, “If that’s what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should”?

For what it’s worth, Politico claims that the gaffe CBS is withholding for later in the week is her blanking when asked to name any Supreme Court cases besides Roe v. Wade. They’d better prove it; if they don’t, it’s an egregious smear. Meanwhile, a progress report from debate camp:

One McCain source said Palin’s husband, Todd Palin, was frustrated with how the campaign was preparing his wife for the debate, but did not elaborate. Another McCain aide, however, dismissed those reports.

But a McCain adviser said the conservatives worried that the campaign was squeezing the charm out of Palin were missing the point.

The adviser said preparing her for the debate was “really hard” because the Alaska governor was learning about issues she had never dealt with before — including those regarding North Korea and other hot spots around the globe.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

They probably have some smarmy guy acting nasty to her in practice sessions, and a sneering “moderator” too. It’s practice for the real thing she will face, but yeah, it would upset her husband to see her treated that way.

At today’s National Press Club luncheon designed to promote his newly-published memoir, “Promises to Keep,” Sen. Joe Biden characterized Sen. Barack Obama’s pledge to hunt down terrorists in Pakistan as old news, noting that he had been proposing such action for “five years.” Asked if Obama’s speech this a.m. was a good idea or showed the junior senator’s inexperience in foreign policy, Biden said: “Yes.” Asked again, Biden elaborated, saying “I’ve been proposing we pursue al Qaeda in Pakistan for five years.” Biden went on to say that the “last thing you want to do” is announce to the people of Pakistan that you’re going to violate their sovereignty. He said such action would force Pakistani Pres. Pervez Musharraf to make deals with various factions. Biden noted as POTUS you simply take action.

After a 30 minute speech, he took questions from the audience, most of which focused on foreign policy and his WH campaign. He was also asked about the Obama-Sen. Hillary Clinton scuffle regarding the YouTube debate question on meeting with various foreign leaders. He said he would send his Secretray of State, NSA and Defense Seretary to meet on a minister level but he would not meet with such leaders during his first year as POTUS.

I recall Harry Reid being interviewed once about Clarence Thomas. Reid criticized Thomas’ rulings and judicial reasoning. When asked for an example, Reid had to think a while. Then he named a case. It came from Nevada. Apparently Harry didn’t like the outcome. Except when motivated by self-interest, Reid couldn’t be bothered to read Thomas’ opinions.

I think the big problems the McCain camp has with Palin is (1) the enthusiasm for his campaign is for her, not for him and (2) she is in disagreement with him over some conservative issues. So the McCain camp has to fight against the perception that the enthusiasm for his Presidency is actually not for him, but for Sarah Palin. In addition to that, the campaign knows it can’t simply “free Sarah”, because she holds views which are contrary to McCain’s, so they can’t risk her just being herself and talking about what she believes, because then the obvious followups will be about how her beliefs differing from McCain’s.

The fact is that conservatives were not excited about McCain’s campaign until Sarah Palin came on board, and it is specifically because she is viewed as being a conservative as opposed to McCain being viewed as a left-leaning maverick. McCain knows this and thus knows he has to be very careful about how he uses her. He has to turn her into a yes-(wo)man (whose job is to support his policies and convince the public of his polices, even if she disagrees with them), but at the same time not have her lose her luster as the new conservative hope.

Seriously, why does the VP need to know about Supreme Court Cases on the spot? If they gave her 2 or 3 minutes to think about it she would probably have a more thorough answer.
I, for one, do not want VPs making decisions without wise counsel and giving it some serious thought.

I hate the press and do not give a $hit what they think. McCain should realize they are his enemy and continue talking to US directly.

I can name about 3…..but, I can talk about quite a few more than that.

That was always where I lost points in History class. I could never recall the ‘given’ name of court decisions, treaties and acts of congress. Though, I still passed with flying colors because I understood what happened and what the implications of it was.

The problem with some of these questions is that they require the ability to recite a laundry list of ‘stuff’ – John McCain’s policies, supreme court decisions, etc. An autistic child with an interest in law could memorize every single supreme court decision, that doesn’t mean that they understand what those decisions mean.

I’m a member of the Federalist Society…. I could list a dozen cases minimum since Roe V Wade… what the hell point would it make… that was a gotcha moment that no jurist could have successfully answered…. God I hate reporters… very stupid people they are.

Continuing to play this “gotcha” game and biased news reports are only going to tick people off further. I agree with the free Sarah Palin move, but the McCain camp has not done a good job placing her in better places than CBS or defending her when there have been obvious slice and diced interviews released. There was not mention of the hatchet editing job done by ABC and some on the part of CBS. Boo for the preparers too!

As far as the Supreme Court cases and decisions, most Americans could probably not tick those off without some prompting. Brown v. Board of Education came to my mind, but the one that has angered me the most was the most recent case where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the terrorists. I cannot remember the case name, but I sure as hell know it was wrong.

What I would love is for Sarah to ask them an American history question! Most of these morons think they know everything and they could not pass an American History class or a real Civics class if their lives depended on it. How about some questions about the Constitution?

Laura Ingraham was right this morning when she said CBS does not reach a large number of voters. Rush’s show reaches over 20 million and we know both Dems and Indies listen. Laura said that if they wanted exposure to large numbers of voters then the McCain camp should have started with Rush or at least put him in the mix. It could not have hurt considering her loyal faithful subjects out here could use some more info to beat back the moonbats with!

Ironically, Roe v Wade is one of the last decisions the lefties like. It is the one that acts as a linchpin to much of their social engineering projects. Add to that, I am sure Couric would be hard-pressed to quote many of the important facts concerning Heller v DC, and that was decided while she was head reporter at CBS.

This whole interview series is approaching 20 courics in weight – See South Park for clarification if necessary.

The best example of “gotcha journalism” was the interview with Gibson when he ask Palin if she agreed with the “Bush Doctrine.” Since the so called “Bush Doctrine” is an invention of the media, and has changed several times, even Bush himself could not have answered that question. Palin did exactly the right thing by asking Gibson what exactly he was referring to, but then the media spun that into…. Palin doesn’t know what the “Bush Doctrine” is…. which of course was unknowable.

The problem with an interview is that, if you stop and think…even just for 5 seconds, on TV you can end up looking like an idiot. If the press favors you, they’ll edit out those pauses so it looks like you had an answer right off the bat. If they don’t like you, they’ll leave every gap possible in there so that you come across as a lightweight that doesn’t know what people are talking about.

If Governor Palin jumps into an answer without collecting her thoughts, she risks rambling on or not quite processing the question and therefore answering a slightly different question than the one asked.

If Governor Palin takes a few seconds to process and give a thoughtful answer, they leave in the dead airtime (which, in person won’t seem like that long, but, on TV seems like an eternity since most TV shows have very rapid fire speech and that’s what we’re used to on that medium). Then, they edit any answer she did come up with down to a single sound bite which leaves everyone thinking, “Wow! She took forever to come up with THAT! She must not be smart.”

The problem with MSM interviews is that they’re always out to trap Republicans, whereas they’ll probably ask Obama about his favorite brand of bathing suit. I’ve read transcripts of both complete interviews with Gibson and Couric, and Sarah Palin gave some very cogent and well-thought answers, most of which ended up on the cutting-room floor, with her answer to one question being pasted after a different question. With that kind of editing, they could make Margaret Thatcher look like a ditz.

The McCain campaign should ONLY agree to MSM interviews either LIVE, when her answers can’t be edited out, or if a McCain campaign cameraman is filming the interview, so that the edited passages can later be presented.

The better way of presenting her to the public is through talk radio, not so much so that she can tell her “story”, but so that she can express her policy positions. It’s pointless to let her get grilled on foreign policy–let McCain do that! Let her get before friendly interviewers and talk about energy policy and fighting corruption in government–which is what she’s good at!

“Okay, Senator Obama, what was the overriding premise in the Marbury vs. Madison case?” Oh, nobody will ask that! He’s a Democrat!

For what it’s worth, Politico claims that the gaffe CBS is withholding for later in the week is her blanking when asked to name any Supreme Court cases besides Roe v. Wade. They’d better prove it; if they don’t, it’s an egregious smear.

At this point, sadly, I think this is 90% likely to be true.

Why would they even float this smear if it wasn’t true? They wouldn’t. Because they don’t need to. If they just wanted to smear her, they’d go back to the well on stuff they already have on her.

I was surprised to see how churlish and blank faced Couric, usually a cheerful, encouraging interviewer, looked with Palin. I had never seen Couric do such a sour, prove yourself to me, nasty countenance before. Being in the gotcha position is something all politicians, even Obama and Hillary, have wisely avoided like the plague and don’t care if anyone criticizes them for it. Think about it, would Obama show up on Limbaugh? The campaign was stupid to do this to Sarah.

Why should she. She’s not a lawyer. I bet Ronald Reagan couldn’t either when he was running. You See, Democrats have all had Lawyers as their candidates for the last 30 years at least. I say no more lawyers! We need leaders not legislators. Besides, as a governor she would be more informed on State Supreme court actions than Federal.

An autistic child with an interest in law could memorize every single supreme court decision, that doesn’t mean that they understand what those decisions mean.

JadeNYU on September 29, 2008 at 7:49 PM

If Palin was conveying in interviews that she understood the implications of Supreme Court decisions, economic policy, foreign affairs, etc. she wouldn’t be getting nailed on the small stuff. She needs a forum and topic where she can speak confidently and authoritatively.

Why does she have to know everything before she gets there? She’s not a moron, she will be given specific duties and I bet she will be awesome at them. Why should she be like the rest of the people that are in that cesspool that is Washington, D.C.?

Fox just showed Palin trying to anwser a question that Couric posed “wouldn’t the bailout money be better used in health care” or something like that… It was a tortured answer to be sure but I realize that there is no way Sarah Palin can prepare for every single question that probably 25 people from both arms of the Obama campaign (MSM and HQ) probably spent a whole week locked in a room coming up with.

What is obvious is that the question was meant to stump her…It also magnifies the disparity between what she is asked versus what the other three candidates are asked… Those of us who like her… will continue to and those of us who never have…never will…

For what it’s worth, Politico claims that the gaffe CBS is withholding for later in the week is her blanking when asked to name any Supreme Court cases besides Roe v. Wade.

Such is life.
“Governor Palin,, Who is the ambassador of New Guinea? Answer Now! Now!!”
“Senator Obama, tell us about your hope for change?”
“Governor Palin, recite the second sentance in the third paragraph of the Declaration of Independence! Now! Now!!”
“Our Dear Obama, please explain your wonderful vision for our future.”
They might as well just come up with a way to respond to a question that no one would think to have an answer for.

I’m just sayin’ that people who can’t name one supreme court case aren’t going to find Palin’s alleged inability to name a bunch to be a big deal. It’s more important that she’s able to talk about the impact the Court has on the lives of citizens.

If she can’t name but one SC decision, I’m not very impressed with her. I hope this is false. There have been several in the news lately, include Kelo, which certainly affected her as governor, the rape/death penalty in Louisiana, and the DC gun ban. Maybe she doesn’t know the names, which is okay, but she better at least have known what was going on at the SC.

Palin talked about crossing the border to keep terrorists from “coming in any farther”. The context there is how far we pursue terrorists who have already come into Afghanistan; that’s something you work out diplomatically, and I’d bet money that we have an agreement with Pakistan regarding hot pursuit.

That’s not the same thing as saying in a public forum/capacity (bear in mind that Obama is on a committee that’s supposed to deal with Afghanistan) that we’d go into Pakistan on our own initiative and without Pakistani approval to take out high-value targets. You don’t say those things “out loud” because you have to give the Pakistani leaders political cover. We probably have an agreement with Pakistan to allow us to do the Predator thing, since those strikes have increased greatly lately, and been effective. But by the same token, we have to let the Paki leaders save face with their own populace (just as we have to allow the Iraqis to do). That’s why those agreements regarding offensive action (not in pursuit as they run back across the border) are not commented on out loud.

Paulson did say something sensible after the failure of the bailout bill, that the Treasury could handle things without Congress. Not really the Treasury, but the Federal Reserve–it can allow banks to “borrow” liquidities at very low interest rates, in effect “creating money”, over the short term, to keep banks afloat until bad loans can be gradually written off, and banks can make money off good loans to pay their debts.

There is a downside to this–future inflation. More dollars in circulation means each dollar is worth less. But if Congress had passed a bailout bill, the burden would be borne by taxpayers–about half the population. If the Fed bails out the banks by “creating money”, it fuels future inflation, the burden of which would be borne by the entire population, although the Fed can always tighten lending when the system becomes liquid again. It could be that letting the Fed handle things is a fairer way of sharing the burden.
But in an inflationary economy, payments on fixed-rate mortgages decrease in value with time–effectively rewarding responsible borrowers. There might be some “merit” to this!

Steve Z on September 29, 2008 at 7:29 PM

phronesis? unseen? I’d love your honest appraisal of that….if the Bush admin could grease the wheels with a little loosening of the money supply, wouldn’t that be OK? I don’t really care about the Dow, but if the credit crunch could be handled by the executive branch, without involvement of Dodd, Frank, Reid, and Pelosi, wouldn’t that be better?

and, wonder of wonders, it could pull the rug right out from under Obambi’s little feet.

sorry for the OT, just curious what some of the stock market guys think….

As far as the Supreme Court cases and decisions, most Americans could probably not tick those off without some prompting. Brown v. Board of Education came to my mind, but the one that has angered me the most was the most recent case where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the terrorists. I cannot remember the case name, but I sure as hell know it was wrong.

That is what I thought of too… I also thought of one that had to do with comminications somehow but one would have to know the question was coming to bone up on it… There was also one where Alito voted against the others which was surprising but I couldn’t tell you what it was without looking it up…

Plain should have told Couric, I’m not a lawyer but i do know supreme court cases.. I’m not going to take your test, however I know what journalistic integrity is, I majored in Journalism and you and the rest the main steam media fall well short of that standard..

I realize it was taped earlier but what do you want to bet that before the clip of the interview is shown Katie will talk about the world coming to an end since the bill didn’t pass? So putting the money into health care instead will hardly be the point.

The way for Palin to win this is to be up front about her lack of experience in certain areas. Such as foreign policy. Then explain she wasn’t picked for her foreign policy experience like Biden was, since the top of her ticket doesn’t need it. And, God forbid, something happened to McCain, she’d just do what Obama did. Pick a VP with that experience. No governor has much foreign policy experience. Bush didn’t. Except with Mexico and they hammered him with it. Quit trying to impress with what you don’t know and impress with what you do know.

PlainPalin should have told Couric, I’m not a lawyer but i do know supreme court cases.. I’m not going to take your test, however I know what journalistic integrity is, I majored in Journalism and you and the rest the main steam media fall well short of that standard..

Palin did exactly the right thing by asking Gibson what exactly he was referring to, but then the media spun that into…. Palin doesn’t know what the “Bush Doctrine” is…. which of course was unknowable.

Maxx on September 29, 2008 at 7:55 PM

Yeah, but I knew exactly what Gibson meant by “The Bush Doctrine” and I think most of us knew it, too. Then again, we live and breath this stuff. It’s okay for me to know it because I don’t have five kids and my daily responsibilities don’t involve being the governor of Alaska. :)

McCain should start stating Obama’s view on Afghanistan and Pakistan as empty tough guy talk and he should use Iraq as the example.

He needs to go back to Obama’s comments through 2004-2006, when Obama was saying how it would be wrong for the US to set time lines for withdrawal and abandon Iraq when they had an obligation to the Iraqi’s, the fallen soldiers, and the national security of the US.

In July of 2004, the day after his speech at the Democratic convention catapulted him into the national spotlight, Barack Obama told a group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an “absolute obligation” to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success.

“The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster,” he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. “It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective.”

In 2004, Sen. Obama said he was willing to support more troops in Iraq, said withdrawal from Iraq would be ‘a slap in the face’ to the troops fighting there.” Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said Saturday he would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the president and military leaders believe will stabilize the country …’A quick withdrawal would add to the chaos there and make it ‘an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity,’ [Obama] said. It would also damage America’s international prestige and amount to ‘a slap in the face’ to the troops fighting there, he said.” [Christopher Wills, "Obama Willing To Support More Troops In Iraq," The Associated Press, 9/19/04]

In 2005, Sen. Obama said that ‘U.S. forces are still a part of the solution.’ “I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq….First and foremost, after the December 15 elections and during the course of next year, we need to focus our attention on how reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say “reduce,” and not “fully withdraw.” [Obama speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 11/22/05]

In 2006, Sen. Obama opposed Sen. Kerry’s amendment to withdraw troops, saying he opposed ‘a precipitous withdrawal of troops.‘ Sen. Obama voted against an amendment by Senator Kerry requiring the president to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq in 2006 and have complete withdrawal by July 1, 2007. “But having visited Iraq, I am also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this administration. It could compound them… A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility” [2006 Vote # 181, S2766, 6/22/06; Obama Remarks, Congressional Record, 06/21/06]

But when things took a down turn in Iraq and public support was falling, the Democrats tried to use that discontentment over the situation in Iraq as a way to get into power and were willing to see Iraq totally fall apart by withdrawing US troops and Obama was a part of that.

All the “tough talk” Obama used in 2004-2006 about Iraq was thrown out the window when his and the Democrats political fortunes were at stake.

The McCain campaign has to point out that this is what is happening now with Obama in regards to Afghanistan and Pakistan. That Obama is just trying to talk tough on those issues so he doesn’t look weak on national security. But when things get tough in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or anywhere else, Obama will bail.

Palin should have told Couric, I’m not a lawyer but i do know supreme court cases.. I’m not going to take your test, however I know what journalistic integrity is, I majored in Journalism and you and the rest the main steam media fall well short of that standard..

What, I believe, Gov. Palin was referring to in her informal retort in Philly is “cross border pursuit” which incidentally is authorized under international law. Many of us wish we would have (if not did) into Syria and Iran from Iraq.

What the media goons took this to mean is that we were announcing a policy (aka Senator Obama) whereby we would invade Pakistan much as Obama stated this summer.

Yeah, but I knew exactly what Gibson meant by “The Bush Doctrine” and I think most of us knew it, too. Then again, we live and breath this stuff. It’s okay for me to know it because I don’t have five kids and my daily responsibilities don’t involve being the governor of Alaska. :)

Tuning Spork on September 29, 2008 at 8:10 PM

Well, you’re one of a select few. I live and breathe this stuff, too, can tell you the only Grand Duchy in existance in the world today (Luxembourg), rattle off the most remote island in the world (Bouvet Island, territorially owned by Norway), discuss zoning laws in Chicago in depth, discuss why we have a Spanish named city in Alaska (Valdez), and tell you all about astronomical constellations.

But I had no idea what was meant by “The Bush Doctrine.” It’s an amorphous, academic term, used only to create the reaction for “Bush.” It’s nothing like, say, the “Monroe Doctrine” which is easily defined.

So, I applaud you. But I think the OP’s comment still stands. The “Bush Doctrine” was a complete gotcha.

I went to a 2nd-tier law school, and my professors typically advised us not to bother memorizing the names of Supreme Court cases, aside from a relatively few major ones. E.g., in an exam, I’d write “the mud-flaps case” (something about a state regulation regarding truck mud-flaps violating the Dormant Commerce Clause, if I remember right.)

With Palin, I’ll bet she can talk about many principles on constitutional law, such as 2nd Amendment rights and her view of eminent domain, but she might blank out on “Heller” or “Kelo,” which proves absolutely nothing.

Yeah, but I knew exactly what Gibson meant by “The Bush Doctrine” and I think most of us knew it, too. Then again, we live and breath this stuff. It’s okay for me to know it because I don’t have five kids and my daily responsibilities don’t involve being the governor of Alaska. :)

Tuning Spork on September 29, 2008 at 8:10 PM

That was a “gotcha question” IF Palin would have said She supported the “Bush Doctrine” then the Democrats would have said AHH HA! See she’s just like EVIL BUSH!

See the Democrat Media are using Barack Obama’s talking points.

The problem is, there is NO Bush Doctrine, why didn’t Charlie ask a real question? any WHy did ABC edit the hell out of the interview?

Honestly, I have a degree in Poly Sci and took a constitutional law class, but when my brain read “one case besides roe v. wade” it seriously froze for 15 seconds. Then after reading the comments where people mentioned cases it was, “Duh. Duh. Duh.” If this did happen with Palin, I can understand it, but then she absolutely has to come out and explain “my brain froze”– being honest is the best policy.

There are some good ideas that Treasury and the Federal Reserve can continue to do. They’ll pump a massive amount of liquidity into the system. The problem is that while they can make money cheap for banks, they can’t force them to lend. Currently, the banks are raising money themselves and deleveraging.

The rescue plan that Congress voted down would have taken assets off the balance sheets of banks, which would have freed them up to lend more.

So, I applaud you. But I think the OP’s comment still stands. The “Bush Doctrine” was a complete gotcha.

lansing quaker on September 29, 2008 at 8:16 PM

Nahhh. She had no idea what any definitions of the Bush Doctrine are. You may be able to spin it so that when she said “In what respect Charlie?” she was asking which definition of the Bush Doctrine, but then how do you explain her still characterizing it as “his worldview’? And how do you explain her still having no idea what it is even after Gibson said he was referring to the Bush Doctrine annunciated in Sept. 2002, before the Iraq War?
It’s important to challenge these assumptions, because otherwise the incident gets lumped in as an example of “media bias” and “left-wing spin” when it is anything but. Palin had no clue what the Bush Doctrine was. She had no clue what any definition of the Bush Doctrine was.

Katie didn’t even write the questions, some under paid producer’s assistant did and since they are all liberals, why would they even care what the answer is, if they can make Palin look like a fool. Of course The One would never be treated like this or even asked the same questions. From what I understand, he didn’t know much about the Constitution and he was supposed to be teaching a class in that subject.

I realize it was taped earlier but what do you want to bet that before the clip of the interview is shown Katie will talk about the world coming to an end since the bill didn’t pass? So putting the money into health care instead will hardly be the point.

Cindy Munford on September 29, 2008 at 8:08 PM

True… The real point of the question was to stump her and not some genuine or sincere desire to get her thoughts on it… sad…